Stan Fayer

I intend to agree with you. Im 80 years old and have been shooting and developing film all my life. With the advent of digital I find many of the people “taking pictures” are mainly computer folks, not that there is anything wrong with that. In my humble opinion i find that if I am shooting in B&W i like to see B&W and create in B&W, not shooting in color and fixing it up later. As for the folks that think the days of B&W are over , tell Ansel Adams.

Stan Fayer

Funny , I just got into my D750 in monochrome and found filters YORG. Who said you don’t need filters?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There's a black & white section, where you can subscribe and see all sorts of approaches: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-140-1.html

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Look into how polarizers work... they are not as straightforward as people normally think.

For landscapes with a wide angle lens, polarizers only work at certain angels to the direction of sunlight. With a wide angle that will show up as a band of filtered light on the photo plane, and areas ... that are unfiltered as the direction you face changes from where the polarizer does to angles it does not work in the same photo. Wide-angle simply will go in and out of this effective angle. making a weird effect.

ND can be done post production for exposure, but PP can't really duplicate the control of long shutter speeds or DOF as nice as shooting them.

PP to B&W is best shooting in color, you can control the same effect by PP filters, or try this...Place your image on a bottom player... you will never touch it in the conversion again. Add two "hue saturation" adjustment layers above it, top one set blending mode to "NORMAL", and in the properties panel slide saturation all the way left to -100- thats it for this layer... everything will be done on the hue saturation adjustment layer below this one...

Then you select the second "Hue Saturation" adjustment layer below, but instead of "NORMAL" you set bending mode to "COLOR" then in the properties box, play with the Hue, Saturation - maybe not so much the "lightness l slider... and wing them around & watch the effect- its dramatic and amazing. There are other ways of doing this, but this is quick and very effective.

By making B&W images from RGB images, you get the detail of all three channels of color to mess with to get the contrast and values and tones you want... Go ahead and click off that top saturation adjustment layer, leave the next one down on... and see what you did to the original image- its exactly like applying all sorts of color filters..

B&W Film has its own place though. The grain, etc... when expertly exposed. And prints.. well using platinum (platinotypes) or other papers to print- its quite beautiful, can't really be replicated by electronic work flow... and they really becomes hangable/sellable/art. But it takes a good capture, and manual PP under an enlarger dodging and burning.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Uhh, it's kinda hard to do that, don't you think?

We all see color. Some mirrorless digital cameras do offer the ability to see a B&W image in the finder, yet save a raw color file. That gives you the ability to make visual decisions during photography about tones, yet still be flexible by converting colors to tones at the computer.

I used film for decades, but the control I have with digital tools is FAR more precise and interesting. I have a box full of filters from my film days that my kids will probably laugh at when I'm gone.

These days I carry:

> Clear glass protectors for use in hazardous environments

> UV filters for use at 6000' and higher elevations

> Polarizers to darken skies, reduce glare from foliage, and see through reflections from water

> Neutral density filters in three strengths to allow video at slow shutter speeds (1/48 second) in bright sun, on cloudy days, and late afternoons

All other filtration is done digitally.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I don't think Adams really gives an F nowadays ....

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Wise and creative shooting is always needed. And knowing how to use you tools to get the image. I would have needed a neutral density filter to get the proper shot in the Frankfurt train station. As it was, I had to shoot at f22 to get a 2 second blur shot of some of the people moving in the station. That made the shot diffractionly unsharp with my Olympus. Now my newer bodies have the internal ND filters. Life and learning always is continuous.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

Here is the basic process using PS that's implemented in camera. This is a tutorial by Serge Ramelii from about 10 years ago demonstrating the process. He demonstrates this technique starting at 4:25 minutes into the video. You don't need 30fps, but you do need a large number of images. In this tutorial, he used about 10 images but I will usually use between 30 and 60 shots. It's not like digital images are expensive. Once you have the images stacked into a smart object, you can delete the individual files. A couple of advantages of this method over using an ND filter is that 1) you can control how much blur you want in post by altering the number of images you use in the stack and 2) you use normally exposed images metered by your camera, so you shouldn't under/over expose your image.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNzBNLxLPQY

I originally learned about this method from an old article demonstrating how to increase the optical resolution (not number of pixels) of the image using a very similar technique. The method used the concept of dithering, the same concept used to increase the resolution of the old oscilloscopes which used 8-bit circuitry to get 12-bits of resolution. Reading the article and trying it made me realize that movement would blur the area of the image containing movement. It worked.

There are a number of cellphone apps that use this same concept. I've used an app called 'Hydra" for about 10 years to do this very process in-camera. But there are many more, such as 'Slow Shutter Cam' and 'Shutter Stop'. In the iPhone, you can even use live mode to get the same effect. They all use this same basic method.

Here are a couple of images using an app called Hyrda. Hydra used about 50 images to create the final image. Each image was handheld and used normal daylight exposure with a shutter speed of 1/30s.

(Download)


(Download)

rcarol

A polarizing filter can not be replicated in post.

rcarol

Why the LOL response? You can do as the poster suggests to mimic the effects of a ND filter.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Or, I can install and shoot with the 10x ND. That's why I bought them, and use them. You do what was suggested. I'll be giving the orders around here. And, I need another laugh today, so give us your results when done.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Well he’s dead. Those days have been over for him for years now. Were her still shooting I’m guessing he’d shoot raw and convert to B&W in processing since it would give him the most control.

rcarol

You’re not making much sense.

Stan Fayer

Wow i feel like I’ve opened a can of worms, But i have learned a lot. Thanks everyone for your ideas and opinions. Now to experiment.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I completely understand the process. I’ve used the same process shooting light trails in an area that didn’t have enough traffic. I took shots of individual cars and stacked them. I could choose which images I wanted and control how the light trails were built. My point is that it’s not always a good substitute for an ND filter. On a bright day at lowest ISO there’s a limit to how slow you can shoot without diffraction. Also how slow you can shoot handheld. And your total exposure time will never be greater than the total of your exposures added up. So at 1/30 sec with 50 exposures you’re still less than 2 seconds. I’m actually surprised you got the water that smooth in less than 2 seconds, but even so there is texture in the water at the bottom that would have benefited from a longer exposure. It can do in a pinch but I think its easier and more effective to just use my ND’s.